Sometimes when I hear discussions like this, I can't help but think back to several places I've lived or stayed where using a car was not possible.
It sucked.
Yes, living in the exact center of a bustling city should be efficient - you should be able to walk everywhere for all your needs and it should be efficient.
But the reality was that you couldn't and it wasn't. It took a tremendous toll on your time and the effort to live life was higher.
I think the way people lived a decent life walking and taking public transportation was to live a smaller life, and put up with the inefficiency of slower transportation and more limited choices of jobs to have, places to shop and things to do.
Am I wrong? Do I not understand? Has anyone moved from a semi-dense area where just about anything was within a 10 minute drive, to a situation where they didn't use a car and still lived a decent efficient life?
What are you talking about, millions of people do it and live without cars in cities. I did it for years in Paris and it's not a "smaller life" — the main things that are smaller are your transportation budget and stress levels.
Just about everything within 10 minutes drive is a total fantasy in my experience. Whether you’re in the suburbs driving or walking in the urban centre. The only difference is that walking is much more pleasant.
That said, if you expand your time radius to 15 minutes, and allow the use of bikes and/or a good subway system, “just about everything” becomes very realistic.
Not everyone can or wants to ride a bike everywhere. Stop this fallacious thinking. Many people don’t care about and will never care about using bikes, nor should they be forced to.
I also have no interest in waiting around for a subway car. It’s nice to just hop into my car and get to my destination (most within 15 minutes of my home) and get back. I don’t have time to wait around or ride a bike in the rain.
The entire northern suburbs in my city have been designed around my “evil” car beliefs. It’s worked so well that our city population keeps declining and my area just keeps adding more and more houses and businesses.
> Has anyone moved from a semi-dense area where just about anything was within a 10 minute drive, to a situation where they didn't use a car and still lived a decent efficient life?
I used to live in Sante Fe, New Mexico in the US. The city was founded in 1610. The city core for the first 300 years was of course walkable, but the last grocery store downtown closed around 2000 so it's a mile walk to the nearest store (biking isn't really an option in Santa Fe).
When I lived there the population was about 65K. I lived in a post-war suburb about a 30 minute walk from the center of town. When built it was on the outskirts of town, connected to downtown via a gravel road. It's all paved now, and a great place to live with a car as just about everything was a 10 minute drive away (though I would need to pay for parking downtown).
The city extends many miles away from the center of town. Going along Cerrillos Road you can see the effect of zoning changes over time. In the center parking is very tight. Further out there are stores with a few parking spots, until you get to the more modern big box stores surrounded by a sea of parking.
After I moved away I came back for a month and tried living without a car. I chose the very best rental location I could, about 13 minute walk to the center of town. While I managed, it required a lot of walking to get to the places I wanted to visit, "a tremendous toll on [my] time" as you say". Santa Fe does have a bus service, but running once per hour and only a few routes. I would not have lived without a car long-term.
I now live in Trollhättan, Sweden, population 60K. While people have lived here for a long time, it didn't become a city proper until a bit over 100 years ago. Sweden was a pretty poor country and it wasn't until the post-war era that people could afford cars. The modern city core was built before widespread car ownership. The apartment building I live in was built around 1960. It's literally on Main Street ("Storgatan" in Swedish). There are two grocery stores in the city center, plus a few others within a mile radius. Both kids (ages 4 and 6) walk to school, which are 3/4 mile away.
The city library, our medical center, the dentist, bank, and more are all within 1/2 mile. That option was not possible in Santa Fe. I had to do a 10 minute drive.
Sweden has become a wealthy country and many Swedes have a single family home with one or two cars. Trollhättan has a lot of suburbs which are not as central as where we live. But they do have frequent bus service with a good network. During peak time I think some of the lines run at 10 minute headways. The regular public busses are also used to carry kids to/from school - Sweden doesn't have dedicated school busses.
We also have big box stores, about 3 miles from where I live, surrounded by a sea of parking. And I can see how it's drawing stores away from the center of town. But unlike Santa Fe, in Trollhättan I can get on the bus (2 blocks away), get a direct bus to the complex, and be dropped off in the middle of the complex area. And those stores are mostly side-by-side and walkable, not separate islands in the sea. See https://www.google.com/maps/place/Överby/@58.313516,12.29464... .
We've lived here now for 10 years, without a car, and I think it's a decent efficient life.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was away on a trip.
When I was there there was essentially no dedicated bike paths. You had to ride on the street, with not even a bike lane. It's a bit better now, with a bike path next to the RailRunner line.
There is a lot of gravel in town, with places where the gravel gets on the side of the road where people park, as when a dirt road or dirt driveway comes onto the road.
In my first few months of living in Santa Fe, I got driving off the road by someone cutting in front of me.
Checking now, it's gotten better. I lived around 601 28 W San Mateo Rd, Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA and worked 309 Johnson St, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA (the apartments have gone condo, and the company I worked for has long since gone bust).
Nowdays I would be able to take the rail trail to the Railyard, but then either bike with traffic or on the sidewalk the rest of the way.
Or I could bike along some busy streets, like take a bike lane on Galisteo into the center of town.
Neither are that appealing.
I certainly know people did bike there, but that does not mean I felt comfortable doing so, even after 10 years of often using a bike for errands in Tallahassee, FL, Urbana/Champaign, IL, and Mountain View, CA.
The American West is generally very sprawled (the big-box stores with a sea of parking as GP puts it above), and because of that speed limits are relatively high (but never high enough to be efficient). Coupled with close to zero protected bike lanes, and often times not even a sidewalk, it's just not reasonable to try your luck against the lifestyl^H^Hwork trucks. Last time I was in Santa Fe I stepped out of my hotel to go for a run, realized that was not exactly what the city designers had in mind, and just headed back in for the treadmill. I've played that game and it's just not worth the hassle, sadly.
Not the person you responded to, but I have random thoughts derive from making a summer visit to a friend in Tucson back in the 90s. We tried riding bikes from Oracle to some place several miles away and my tires got so soft from the pavement heat that it split, the tube burst, and we aborted the trip. Now, this was way back in the 90s when both A) bike tire compounds were probably of much worse quality than today, and B) I was a lazy teen with no grit who didn't even try to change the tire, nor would I have wanted to, because it was hovering around 38C that day and all I wanted was to be in the pool.
These days, I love riding my bike everywhere. When I was living in southern Japan for a while, summers there were at least as hot as that summer in Tucson and just about maxed on the humidity. With more age and grit I still rode my bike everywhere, plus took weekend trips through the mountains of the island.
I think not everyone has the patience to build up this grit or, in some cases, might have medical conditions that prevent it. Heat stroke is a concern, as is just showing up places drenched in sweat. Also, looking at a bike lane map of Santa Fe, their infrastructure today is not great.
All this is to say, I think biking in Santa Fe would be an option, but for many it might not be convenient, safe, or desirable.
> Sometimes when I hear discussions like this, I can't help but think back to several places I've lived or stayed where using a car was not possible.
Example?
Us in New York are going by fine taking the train or biking, and if we really need a car we call a cab or an Uber, and that we have to pay extra makes us really think if we need that car or is that just us being lazy.
I won't ever understand the joy of punting that bill of your joyrides to the next generation, I guess.
Similarly, being car-less in Chicago is the way to go. Even pre-Uber it was far better — it can take an hour to find a parking space in certain neighborhoods at certain times.
The train blows since the pandemic. Blue line is coming like once every 10 minutes during rush hour so you can't count on ever actually getting on due to crowding.
For instance, when I lived in Italy, we did have one car for our family of four. We used it to go see the in-laws and stay late at dinner when there were no public transit options to get home.
But we took the tram downtown with our small kids.
And I rode my bike to work often.
And my wife and I would go out on dates riding our bikes.
And I'd walk our kids to school.
And if we wanted to go hiking out in the hills, we'd drive.
So it wasn't so much about a zero-car lifestyle as a 'right tool for the job'.
I think "Just about anything" within a 10 minute drive is probably not a carefully considered standard. Can you name a specific place in which you think this standard obtains?
I think the only way to think objectively about this sort of thing is with a very careful analytical framework. Think about the amenities you need, and how you acquire them, and then really -measure-, rather than just "think back" about the burden of acquiring them. Not many people live 10 minutes from their work, for instance. Google thinks the average is just under a half hour each way.
If you try to analyze the number of jobs within <x minutes> of a particular domicile, it's my expectation that you'll find more, not fewer, options in urban setting. I reccomend https://app.traveltime.com/ as a way to tinker with your expectations there. Toss a 10 minute drive around your town. You might be surprised at how modest that span is.
I can name one: a house at Monterey Place, Santa Fe, New Mexico, US
According to Google Maps it's no more than 10 minutes to any edge of the city. It's also near stores and a rail station with service to Albuquerque.
While I lived north-east of there, most places I went to in Santa Fe were within a 10 minute drive of where I lived. I rarely went to the SW corner of town.
I've lived as a foreigner in a big metropole in Australia and I fell that all places that I could go where tourist traps. Simple life hacks like buying groceries for a week was impossible, the closest cheap grocery store was too much of walk and too hilly for a bike loaded with bags. I do agree that cars make the city worse for the people living there, but I am not a fan in how cities limit your lifestyle. People that live in the city are sometimes blind to this and don't understand that someone might prefer to live another life.
My pattern of life is very different in the one situation vs the other. As a pedestrian in a city I just pop out to the corner grocer; I step outside and take a walk (often to the park); I go to nearby restaurants; I get a coffee. Sometimes I ride the bus for no reason. All this is easy. On the other hand, going to IKEA is an all-day adventure. And I do overpay for some groceries.
When I am a car-bound suburbanite, I instead organize trips once or twice a week to the grocery store, where I load up on supplies; I maybe drive to meet someone and go out to eat on one day of the weekend; and otherwise I sit in my house, until I plan an "outing". In general, suburban life seems to require more intention and planning for all the little things, but it makes some big things easier, like "I need to go buy a sofa".
In the urban environment, I save money on a car, but spend more on rent. And dining/entertainment can be cheaper -- it varies -- but I consume more of it.
Life just adapts to whatever environment it finds itself in.
Yeah, I've lived in London and New York (not in the suburbs of either) without a car and there was multiple of everything within a short walk, and huge amounts of stuff (literally thousands upon thousands of things to do) everywhere in less than half an hour on the train. It was and is great.
Not sure which cities the person you're replying to is talking about. I imagine a lot of American cities just suck without a car, even if they "have" public transportation.
Yes, I moved from a car-centric place to Stockholm and having a car here is a luxury (mostly because parking is prohibitively expensive) and most people don't. Helps that the public transport is really good, even people who own cars they often use it only during weekends. Supermarkets are present in pretty much every single station so you just stop by when commuting and make more frequent visits but buying less items on each visit.
People who live far away from metro/train stations (where parking is actually affordable, or free if they live in a house with a personal garage) usually just drive to the station and then board a train when commuting. Taking the train is faster than the car.
Yeah, I moved to Tokyo from suburban US. It's great here. Far more convenient than living in America.
What kind of crappy places did you live where having a car wasn't possible, yet there was no decent public transit?
Furthermore, living in the built-up suburbs of a large metro in the US, not much was within a 10 minute drive. Sure, the grocery store was, and some shitty chain restaurants, but that's about it. Everything else was much longer because of traffic.
Parking in urban areas is often a net negative; I.e the motorist doesn’t contribute as much to the local economy as the negative externality they accrue.
I don't remember the details and searches aren't turning up anything, but I remember somebody managed to camp on public streets without being bothered for a surprisingly long time by building a tent that looked like a car with a cover on it. I think this was a bit of performance art rather than being done out of necessity, the point being that people just think of that space as being for cars and don't really question it.
Now that everyone is doing it it's not as easy. But ten years ago I lived out of a white utility van and lived rural with my family in the weekend. Parked commercial or industrial areas of the city, nobody ever bothered me.
Imo, street side parking in cities should just be scrapped. It makes no sense for the public to pay so much money to allow people to park particular kinds of private property for free. Pushing all parking on to businesses own lots or in dedicated parking facilities would let the market adequately price parking rather than externalising the cost.
Per-business lots are incredibly inefficient. They have to optimize for peak demand or lose sales during crucial peak seasons - when was thr last time you saw a Walmart parking lot full?
They make it more difficult to visit multiple stops in one trip. Instead of parking downtown, going to an appointment and grabbing lunch I have to move my car in between those trips, generating more emissions and waste.
> when was thr last time you saw a Walmart parking lot full?
Sounds like they could make them much smaller
> They make it more difficult to visit multiple stops in one trip. Instead of parking downtown, going to an appointment and grabbing lunch I have to move my car in between those trips, generating more emissions and waste.
A general, private garage is an existing possible solution to this problem.
You're not really adressing the point of what they were saying. If they were smaller and utilised more efficiently, there would be at least some days where you shop up and its full, so you go somewhere else. Walmart want your money, so they're incentivised to have more parking lots than they'll ever need. Pushing everything into private lots only will exacerbate this problem
They don't have to be per business. In Australian cities at least, you'll have one multi level parking facility which serves the whole area. It's entirely funded by the user rather than the tax payer and is even more effective.
In my building, there are 40 units... and 6 parking places in the basement. Most of the city is this way. Street side parking is the only way to go. TBH I prefer trees and grass over parking lots. I would not change it.
I don't see a meaningful distinction between a consolidated parking lot and one that's distributed along the side of the road when it comes to tree and grass cover. For dense urban situations car parking buildings allow more than either surface lots or surface street parking.
Nearly half of parking lots' space a dedicated to move in and out. That space isn't needed with street parking because the street itself accomplish this function.
Parking lots are mostly used only half of the day and empty otherwise, because typically people drive their car around in a few different parking lots. Streets are useful all day long.
I'm unconvinced removing street parking would allow for smaller streets because that space is also used for bus stops and snow management in winter. Chance are street parking don't take place in itself but merely maximize usage of space that would be used up by the streets anyway.
I don't think we need private parking buildings to park our private cars when not in use, ie, most of the time. We need fewer, always in use, public cars to drive on our already public roads.
As a cyclist, removing street parking would free up space for dedicated bike lanes and remove risks of being doored. It would also increase visibility a good deal, especially at a time when cars are getting so massive.
Have you seen what streets in Japan look like? Very narrow, very walkable, views unobstructed by rows of cars; the streets become a place for interaction, a place for children to play, etc. It works because street parking is not allowed.
there so many compounding elements that make it difficult to transition to something like Tokyo. Things in America are big because we had room and built our cities around big things. if you make the average parking spot the size of a parking spot in Tokyo, 95% of american cars wouldnt fit. and no one really uses mopeds because the streets are full of giant cars traveling very fast. And people need cars in the first place because cities arent dense enough, and therefore harder to justify public transit because the density isnt there etc.
someone in the chain just needs to bite the short term bullet to start a cascade of events that will make american cities more liveable
> And people need cars in the first place because cities arent dense enough, and therefore harder to justify public transit because the density isnt there etc.
...and housing is too expensive because cities strongly resist increasing density. We have indeed found ourselves in a cycle of dysfunction.
Removing street parking makes sense some places but not in general. It only makes sense when there is another need for that space. Like taking parking from major street to make protected bike lane or bus lane.
My neighborhood has less off-street parking than newer ones. Which means all the extra parking goes on the street. The streets are narrow, parking makes them safer by forcing cars to share a single lane. There is no conflict with bikes because the cars are going slowly. There are other neighborhood nearby that have too much street parking and should probably charge more for parking passes.
The city center in many European cities does not have street parking of any sort, private cars are largely or entirely banned, and they are some of the most livable, walkable, and vibrant urban areas.
That's because most of those cities were built up before cars existed, and even horse-drawn carriages were a luxury for the few.
Many American cities on the other hand have grown up with the car, with wide streets dividing neighborhoods, and essential facilities scattered far away from one another. Reducing car usage in a typical American city (not downtown Manhattan) is not just a matter of banning cars or replacing them with public transportation. The city itself needs to be redesigned in a more compact way. Property values will skyrocket in the CBD, and crash everywhere else.
This is untrue. Most American cities were built before the car and even had wide streetcar networks. Buildings and (often poor and black) neighborhoods were torn down to make way for urban highways. Car manufacturers literally bought up streetcar companies just to rip out tracks and sell more cars.
Europe picked up on this trend too a little delayed in many places, but luckily not to the same degree and realized the bad direction more quickly.
I live in between-wars streetcar suburb and it is very walkable and very desirable. It is mostly single family homes, but smaller ones on smaller lots. The other differences with later suburbs are sidewalks, garage in back or none at all, which means street parking. In addition, there are shops along the major streets so there is something to walk to. Plus, it is close to transit ans to downtown and more vibrant neighborhoods.
It would be easy to build new suburbs like this but without the location. Or add features to existing suburbs.
I’ve spent time looking at a map of my city, and it’s pretty easy to see the transition. The older streetcar suburbs have streets on a grid, and alleys down the middle of every block. The post WW2 areas are all widely separated and full of cul-de-sacs, and the alleys are gone.
Walking anywhere in the older areas is easy, though a lot of the amenities like mom and pop stores are now gone. Walking anywhere in the newer areas is pretty much impossible. The streets don’t connect and there is nowhere to walk to.
Although Ford had taken great care to blend into Earth society, he had "skimped a bit on his preparatory research," and thought that the name "Ford Prefect" would be "nicely inconspicuous." The Ford Prefect was a popular British car manufactured from 1938 to 1961, and Adams later clarified in an interview that Ford "had simply mistaken the dominant life form" of Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Prefect_(character)
Happily, we eliminated parking minimums here in Bend, Oregon and civilization has not collapsed. Leaving things to the market is actually a pretty incrementalist reform. Plenty of developers continue to provide parking because they figure their customers want it. But not all of them... And that means we can gradually adapt to different needs over time.
I mean yes, it's unironically better if something that ruins things for everyone is restricted to be a luxury good, because less of a bad thing (congestion, pollution, space, death etc) is a good thing even if some lucky fuckers (not enough to meaningfully impact the larger effect) manage to skirt the spirit of the law.
Private cars will eventually be banned from cities, though, I'm sure of that. But it will take a long time. Congestion pricing and such are baby steps and is just you finally paying for your previously free externalities, and yes the market (in this case society/dominant politics) gets to set the price. Tough luck, welcome to proper capitalism.
All these parking spots are going to be an amazing resource to repurpose (housing, parks, etc.) as automated-deliveries and self-driving cars become widespread.
In fact, car-hostility drives up the value of real estate, because it's harder to live outside and drive in. If you want to enjoy the lifestyle, you need to pay for a place in it.
I really want to know what 5D chess went on to make put "livable cities" and "urban planning" on the truther, red-pilled, plandemic, crowds hit list.
It is something that should be examined and critically discussed thats not what i'm talking about
I'm talking about how suddenly people who have never so much as listened to an episode of 99PI before or showen any interest are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us.
Who benefits from the propagation of this idea? Is there just someone out there trying to bring about the end of humanity as fast as possible by making people crazy about any thing remotely sensible? Or is this just some discursive collateral damage coming from some ideological battle going on somewhere else where livable cities became one of the front lines, and the bull-shit psyops ideas leaked out every via the internet..
Also, these people live in the burbs, and their experience of driving into a city is their experience of the city. It's one of the reasons they hate cities. Driving in is confusing and stressful. Add an alien system of congestion pricing involving some transponder they've never seen before and it's just too much for them.
To the extent that the concerns are legitimate, I think we need to look at China, and at the way people were locked down in small condo blocks during COVID. There was a fear that the same tactics would be employed in "Western" countries.
There is an irony, however, which is that self-contained condo blocks and "gated communities" are at least as prone to this as are organic grids. Y'know -- actual good urbanism.
Finally, I think they do perceive, in their own way, the housing crisis. They recognize that housing is generally more affordable outside cities, so they see the push towards cities as a push towards renting and non-ownership. I would prefer more affordable housing within cities, but I can sort of understand this argument.
Conspiracy theory culture is a parody of itself. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, and legalizing apartments increase freedom. It gives you the choice of not having to drive just to cross the street safely. Certain charlatans make money selling outrage culture, or harvest votes exploiting fear about a certain lifestyle coming under attack.
It's not going to be true for every conspiracy or every conspiracy theorist, but like most things in the US you can connect a lot of dots with racism.
In the Robert Moses era mass transit was destroyed because it benefited poor African American communities, and highways were put down to tear apart their neighborhoods. Today, people use "urban" as a dog whistle for "black".
People decided the pandemic was no big deal and we should just let it rip in the US the moment early data showed it affected African Americans and other minorities more than whites.
It may not be the true explanation all of the time, but if you ask yourself if there could be a racist motivation for adopting a particular set of odd views, it's amazing how easy it is to connect the dots.
You don't think blacks want to have cars too? This has nothing to do with race; that's just a distraction. As others have noticed, it's about corralling the population into more easily "managed" areas and depriving them of ownership.
are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us.
Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked.
Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions. After all, they are still alive and healthy enough (for a controlled period of time.)
They're only calling it a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discredit the other side.
Do you consider bike centric cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam not free?
The concept of "cars == freedom" is completely absurd to me. The mode of transport that has a unique identifier printed on it, that you need a licence to drive that can be revoked, that you have to pay the government to use, is considered the beacon of free and open transport.
In fact, many car centric city designs force you to own a car which seems like the opposite of freedom.
You control the population through psychological isolation, not physical isolation. In general, people driving cars are no harder to control than people without cars. They are no harder to track. Like, at all.
You also have to realize that the only car that increases your freedom is your own: everybody else's reduces your freedom. They take a lot of space, they make a lot of noise, they reduce visibility, they hinder pedestrian and bicycle movement, and so on. If you believe in freedom, you have to be holistic about it and learn to make some compromises.
True freedom includes the freedom to do things others might not like.
I happen to like the space and enjoy the noise.[1] So does nearly everyone around me.
You can squeeze together in your claustrophobic factory-farm cities if you like, but leave those who don't out of it.
[1] I highly recommend taking a ride in a 70s "land yacht" with a mildly tuned engine sometime. It might change your perception of cars entirely if all you've been in are cramped sluggish econoboxes.
You enjoy the noise of cars rolling next to you when you are dining on a terrace? You like to listen to their sweet lullaby when you are reading on your balcony? That's... interesting, I guess?
We are not talking about freedom, we are talking about entitlement. You are not entitled to free parking on the side of streets, nor to be able to drive on every single street, nor to do so at a high speed, nor to be as noisy as you want to be. Other people have needs too. People need space to walk, they need space to bike, and in many cases this space has to be taken from space that was previously dedicated to cars, because that's all there is. It's only fair.
In any case, no one is forcing you to live in a city. Live wherever you want. But many people like them, and people who like cities tend to like them even more when there are fewer cars (not zero -- fewer). If you don't like it, that's fine. Stay in your paradise, and stay out of ours (or park at the bus station).
Yes I like the sound of cars, especially American ones from an era when it was actually a great country and the majority of the population wasn't being squeezed out of owning things by the government and rich elites.
> It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked.
Cars are required to have registration and license plates, and most of them have GPS tracking as well. If you don't want to be tracked, ride a bicycle.
Plates are only visible from a line of sight (and there has been tons of opposition to automatically reading them with cameras, for good reason.) My car has GPS but that's just a receiver.
Have you tried to take a 500-mile trip on a bicycle? While carrying a hundred pounds of luggage?
Cars are cages that keep you from moving through traffic jams, but they're also exo-skeletons that imbue super speed, envelope you in a bubble of condition air, and shield you from the dangers of other vehicles.
It’s a prisoner’s dilemma of having to buy ever bigger cars to keep up with the crash safety arms race. (Bigger cars fare worse in single car collisions).
Conspiracy theorists have distorted proposals for congestion zones into much more nefarious things. This not much different than a street not allowing large trucks, or turning over lanes to only HOV, bus or taxi use.
People thought Stallman was a crazy conspiracy theorist 20 years ago. Now we know he was just unusually prescient (and there's still an ongoing campaign against him.)
They're just boiling the frog slowly enough and hoping we don't notice.
It sucked.
Yes, living in the exact center of a bustling city should be efficient - you should be able to walk everywhere for all your needs and it should be efficient.
But the reality was that you couldn't and it wasn't. It took a tremendous toll on your time and the effort to live life was higher.
I think the way people lived a decent life walking and taking public transportation was to live a smaller life, and put up with the inefficiency of slower transportation and more limited choices of jobs to have, places to shop and things to do.
Am I wrong? Do I not understand? Has anyone moved from a semi-dense area where just about anything was within a 10 minute drive, to a situation where they didn't use a car and still lived a decent efficient life?